This confirms Q's close race In PA.Although Obama Is doing slightly better here.

Obama will carry PA.Romney might(and I stress might) be more competive than Mccain.I suspectunline the 10 10 spread In 2008 we are looking at a 4 or 5 point spread here.

Pennsylvania projected to be close in 2008 until Election Day. John McCain campaigned intensely but by all accounts ineptly. Netting everything on Pennsylvania, McCain neglected other states that he absolutely had to win. I doubt that that will quite be repeated in 2012.

Isn't being at 45 a bad sign for Obama? It isn't like he doesn't have name recognition. Undecideds tend to break 75to25 or more against an incumbent in the last several months.

Yes, I think it is. Nevertheless, the fools-gold aspect others mention above is a huge factor.. its his best prospect after IN-FL-NC-NH-OH to take something away from Obama08 (yes I think better than CO-NV-IA), and followed by MI, but still, its a risk to attend to PA or MI too much with time and money because those first five states listed are still better prospects.

Another way to put this is the PA/MI prospect is tantalizing, but difficult to act upon strongly given other pressures. We may look back in 2013 or so and say 'well had he only focused on PA and MI instead of OH and VA, he could've been president', but from 2012 perspective that would be a hazard whatever the polling.

Kerry's primary was over much quicker. New Hampshire basically ended it. Obviously the challenger will strengthen now that the general started yesterday.

Romney was already in near-record unfavorability territory by the end of January, so you can't entirely blame the primary for that.Actually, Romney's the one who should be trying to take a page from Clinton's book -- a challenger running against an incumbent in tough economic times, whose unfavorability provides the only precedent for Romney's. Of course, Bill Clinton was unpopular because he slept around, and won the election by feeling people's pain. Romney's unpopular because he's rich and aloof and awkward. "Understanding the problems of people like you" is Romney's Achilles heel.

Unfavorability #'s on Romney are probably soft because many republicans are/were unsold or uncertain on his true social positions and the 'Romneycare vs Obamacare' thing. That stuff is probably a bonus in the general.

Unfavorability #'s on Romney are probably soft because many republicans are/were unsold or uncertain on his true social positions and the 'Romneycare vs Obamacare' thing. That stuff is probably a bonus in the general.

Actually, his really lethal favorability numbers are with independents.

"A new poll from the centrist Democratic group Third Way surveyed 1,000 independent voters in 12 swing states. Obama leads Romney among this group by 44 to 38 percent. But the catch came here: Asked to rate themselves from 1 to 10 on an ideological scale, the group collectively put itself at 5.2, slightly right of center. Meanwhile, respondents put Obama at 3.9 and Romney at 6.1—each of them equidistant (1.1 points) from the center. In other words, they said Obama is exactly as liberal as Romney is conservative, and they said they are a bit closer to Romney."-daily beast (today)

You think that's a problem for Romney? back flips and cartwheels are in order.

Because Romney is competent. If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency. If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion. Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

Because Romney is competent. If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency. If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion. Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

Because Romney is competent. If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency. If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion. Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

You're not seriously describing President Obama as a "radical ideologue" surely?

Because Romney is competent. If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency. If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion. Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

Are you saying that Romney will balance the budget and reduce the national debt?

"You're not seriously describing President Obama as a "radical ideologue" surely?"

Not necessarily, but the dominant element of his party is and he will never stand up to them. Spending on his watch has certainly been in the realm of "Radical" and spending is a major part of "ideology."

Am I saying that Romney will balance the budget and reduce the national debt?

Sort of, baring a new military campaign the deficits will trend toward balanced over 8 to 10 years and the solvency of entitlements will be strengthened.

You know that we've had about two straight years of job creation, right? That GDP is at a record high?

Quote

GOP = against failed 800billion stimulus package that created ZERO jobs and exploded debt Dem s = In favor of worst government spending package in the history of the country

There is a wide consensus among economists that the stimulus propped up GDP and kept unemployment down. The debate is over whether if it was unnecessary and how much it helped. We don't know if it starved off 11.5% UE or 20%.

Quote

I think I could create ONE job if I pilled up 5 TRILLION of Debt

If your hackery was inversely proportional to your ability to create jobs, you'd probably destroy millions with that $5 trillion.